W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

Re: D-AR009.3 discussion points

From: Doug Bunting <db134722@iplanet.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:11:12 -0700
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <3CEC0970.9D441B78@iPlanet.com>
Now I'm getting confused.  I had thought this CSF referred to a suggestion
raised during our face to face Semantic Web discussion.  The point then seemed
to be making sure every concept in our architectural document had a URI.  We
now seem to be discussing run time components of that architecture.  Which is
it?

If the first, we should be a bit more explicit but leave it under D-AC009.  We
may also want to add something mentioning these URIs as useful in the
documentation for identified technologies.  If the second, we again need to be
more explicit and moving it under D-AC011 makes sense.

thanx,
    doug

Heather Kreger wrote:

> I can live with the proposed phrasing at the bottom.
>
> Heather Kreger
> Web Services Lead Architect
> STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
> kreger@us.ibm.com
> 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM on
> 05/22/2002 10:25 AM ---------------------------
>
> Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>@w3.org on 05/21/2002 10:53:07 PM
>
> Sent by:    www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
>
> To:    Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
> cc:    wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Subject:    Re: D-AR009.3 discussion points
>
> My 2c on this one ...
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 01:34:35PM -0400, Christopher Ferris wrote:
> > D-AR009.3
> > "All conceptual elements should be addressable directly via a URI
> reference."
> >
> >
> > HP: This belongs under D-AC011
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > IBM: Should say 'identifiable' instead of 'addressable'
>
> Sure, that works for me.
>
> >
> > PF: I would prefer that URIs, rather than URI references, be used.  Also,
> this should probably be
> > relocated to D-AC-011.
> >
> > CVX: I'm not quite sure I understand what this means, but at least it
> says "should".  I would be
> > happier if this were a bit softer, as in "An effort should be made to
> make conceptual elements
> > addressable by URI's".  I don't like having requirements that sound to me
> like they might be
> > impossible.  It is reasonable to accept such risk in a research project,
> but less so in this sort of
> > WG.
>
> Identifying things with URIs is a really easy and cheap thing to do, as
> long as you're able to give them some semblance of persistence.  I
> personally think that "should" is fine; if it really is too much of a
> burden for you, then don't.  Otherwise, do.
>
> So how does "All conceptual elements should be identifiable directly via
> a URI" sound?
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 17:11:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:59 GMT